Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 15
MSNBCW 15
CSPAN 14
CSPAN2 9
WHUT (Howard University Television) 5
KQED (PBS) 4
CNN 3
CNNW 3
KRCB (PBS) 3
WETA 3
CNBC 2
FBC 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 106
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 106 (some duplicates have been removed)
and girls, the rights and roles of women and girls a central focus of american foreign policy. and i didn't do it because it was a nice thing to do or it was some pet project of mine. i did it because the evidence is overwhelming. countries that deny political and social rights to women and girls are more unstable, more likely to breed extremism, more likely to threaten the united states. countries that deny economic opportunities to women and girls, rooted in education and business and investment are not going to be as prosperous as they might otherwise be. so it became clear that if i was going to be traveling around talking about diplomacy and development, urging changes in economic structures, introducing what we call economic statecraft to be a central pillar of our foreign policy you had to talk about women and girls and so i've tried to do that. >> restrictions on women's economic participation are costing us massive amounts of economic growth and income in every region of the world. >> this work, ensuring that women are equal partners, as they should be, and are free to realize th
adults. >> i would argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy. >> the average american is not thinking about and trying to wonder about where the republican party is. they're thinking about how to make their life work. >> your leader in the house right there, eric cantor, where is this debate headed? >> i think it's a good debate for the republican party to have. when you lose an election, you ought to be a little bit reflective and ought to think back and ought to begin to say, what do we need to do differently? we didn't do badly in the election, but the president won with less than he was elected in '08, lower popular vote, lower electoral vote. we held the house, we have 30 governors. the idea this is some existential crisis is overdone, i think, but we didn't win so what do we need differently. i like what we're hearing and like the direct line that governor jindal took because i think we have -- >> we can't be too -- >> yeah, we nearly were in the fiscal cliff and could have triggered a big tax increase. i don't want to be stupid but you a
him the most important person in the mix this week in the vice president spoke about foreign policy challenges at the munish security conference. >> we have made it clear at the outset that we would not-- we would be prepared to me bilaterally with the irani leadership. we would not make it a secret that we were doing that. we would let our partners know if that occasion presented itself. that offer stands. nearly all of our partners and allies are convinced that president assad is a tyrant, hell-bent on clinging to power, is no longer fit to lead the syrian people and he must go. >> as well as syria and iran the united states faces new challenges from islammix extremism in african, yet it is not clear they are ready to stand on their own by 2014 when u.s. troops are scheduled to withdraw. and great power politics are on the a lend-- agenda again. china is confident, insertive in the south china sea in relations about moskow have cooled. all of this with a troubled economy at home and calls for a lighter footprint abroad. i'm pleased to have tom donilon back at this table. welcome.
that they agree with far more than men do with senator kerrey on foreign policy, and they just trashed him. >> does he have the know-how to manage a barrel at the pentagon? >> he was unsteady with his answers, grasp of the facts. later in the afternoon, the third round of hearings, after he was more sure-footed, does he have the capacity to do it? i think so. if you listen to his exchanges with senator king from maine, managing the defense department, it was a much more competent answer. >> what about this jewish lobby phrase? he apologized for using that phrase, but listen to this exchange. >> name one person who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the u.s. senate. >> the use of intimidation -- i should have used influence. >> he could not name one person publicly. this is gamesmanship of the first order. you have conversations with plenty of members of congress and they feel one way about some of the issues in the middle east, that they simply cannot move an inch on issues involving israel. >> is he in command of the issues? >> i do not think anybody would have come off well. i think
and its impact on neighboring countries. then, a look at foreign policy challenges facing the obama administration. after that, a discussion about the state of women's rights around the world. >> if you have some hotshot who just got his phd in computer science from stanford, she is getting offers from all over the world. to say you can stay in some limbo for six years, that is not really competitive. >> congress can do a lot. you do not have to be efficient on your iphone or blackberry to understand the application of policy and what makes it work and does not. >> it is very difficult to make investment decisions and expect any kind of return on investment when you have no way to predict the future. our difficulty right now is that there is no consistency or certainty in in our policy decisions. >> the government's role in technology and policy, from this years ces international consumer electronics show. monday night on the communicators on c-span2. >> at age 65, she was the oldest first lady when her husband became president. she never set foot in washington. her husband, benjami
the fears of progressives as obama conducts a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the president prepares to face the nation, but republicans are still stuck on benghazi. >> the president's state of the union address. could be the president's last best chance to address a captive audience. >> do republicans have the leverage now? >> none of the things i ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed. >> i don't want to live with this sequester. >> how do we get growth with jobs? >> no confirmation without information. >> are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his questions but certainly
office in 2009. for more now on this attack, the president's foreign policy, i'm joined by pulitzer prize-winning journalist of fox news contributor, judith miller, fox news middle eastern terrorism analyst. let me begin with you. this attack on -- this sneak attack during the secretary's tenure is kind of an art of vice, but the reality is that we still have enemies who are pursuingheir interests, even as we deny the force, the power, and the, if you will, the ubiquity of those forces. >> absolutely. i mean, the denial of the kind of need to continue the war and terror in this administration is really striking. hillary clinton wonders out, says farewell to her troops, takes a swipe at her critics and the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee has to point out, by the way, this calls for a sweeping review of the security of our diplomatic facilities, and she is never asked about it, does not have to respond to it. she is really amazingly adept at dodging hard questions. lou: adept, immune, inoculated, teflon, if you will. this secretary of state, despite the miles logged, almost
, immigration, the environment, everything basically, but his lead on foreign policy is a staggering 14 points. what makes republicans think this is a good thing to have a fight over? >> right. up until recently everybody said, look, politics stops at the water's edge, and that hasn't been the case for the last couple years with this republican party. but it turns out that it wasn't necessarily that both parties followed that axiom because they were being nice about it. it turns out that it's incredibly bad politics to challenge your sitting president overseas. and, you know, this benghazi thing has not worked out for the republican party at all. they tried effectively to make it the biggest issue of the presidential campaign in the last several weeks, and people just didn't buy into it. what they saw is a tragedy. something that was -- if it could have been prevented, it should have been prevented, but they weren't going to start pointing blame and ask for the resignations of hillary clinton and throw barack obama out of office. >> right. >> and the idea that you'd be able to stop future cia
have a foreign policy that is coming apart. >>gregg: you were in the carter administration. all hands on deck the. >> the president himself, for ten, 15, 20 hours a day, in the middle of the greatest moments of this, involved himself personally. we were trying to get them out the day they flew home we were there all night and the next morning up until the time of the inauguration and the president was hands on. the notion this president was disengaged and talked to no one after the 15 minute meeting and went off the next day to a fundraiser? now we understand and this is causing the republicans today to start saying, patrol and -- start saying, graham and others, they will hold up the nomination. >>gregg: does it appear lights were out at the white house while an american diplomat was underattack and other americans? >> that is right. to me, the bottom line question that pat raises and you raised, too, do we have a coherent foreign policy and national security policy not only through iran and north korea but through the role of the united states in rooting out terrorism in north afric
. >> on foreign policy, we have a new secretary of state taking over today just as veep biden in his meetings with french president hollande in paris talk about the possibility of one-on-one bilateral talks with iran. let's take a look at what joe biden had to say. >> when and if the supreme leader and the iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of these embargoes, we're prepared to discuss. we're prepared to meet with them individually. >> iran, of course, a big topic in the chuck hagel confirmation hearings. a big source of dispute and wig conversations and negotiation with israel. john kerry over the weekend talked to simon peres and talked to abbas and also met hue. where do we stand now, and what is the timeline aring the different red lines with israel and with the possibility of one-on-one talks with iran? >> well, aun drae, i thought that the most important statement that the vice president biden made was when and if. they haven't really had conversations even with the totally of the european powers, but -- and iran since june. many thought that there would
saying you know foreign policy, here is another bit of evidence that it is run from the white house. now the president has the perfect right to overrule. >> yes. >> he is is the can kmnd-- commander in chief and some of the best decisions a man named elliott cone write a book on this, some of the best presidential decisions have been overruled. so within that perfect right he is, nonetheless the concentration of power in the white house across a whole range of spheres is i think a little troubling. and seconds's very hard to believe that there wasn't any politics in this domestic politics, i mean. now it could be arming the rebels was ineffective but if you have this broad sweep of people saying we should arm the rebels and the white house says no, it's hard to believe since it was so politically convenient not-- that it wasn't a mistake. and now the wrong rebels are in -- >> politics does have a role sometimes. >> the president did, in fact, overrule his advisors, including the vice president, including the secretary of defense gates, on going after osama bin laden. and elise ened to jo
? >> ultimately the key decision makers in american foreign policy are the same people. which is the president and its key advisors on the national security council. and the issue is not whether or not the advocates in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go ove
peace and transformation in the region. we have made an important foreign policy shift, both in terms of process and engagement in the region. it is grounded for the first time in our history in the bedrock of consent and legitimacy and many stakeholders in the making of foreign policy. this is a first for pakistan including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines. it does empower us to make decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that as long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states on afghanistan as the transition out of the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> oh, ok. i was so busy taking notes. a couple of questions and i will turn it over to my colleagues. i want to ask about the impact, if any, that having john kerry as secretary of state is going to have. what is your sense of the importance, if any, of his appointment? >> i think that pakistan-u.s. relations are vital to both countries and we appreciate very much t
.c., foreign policy, the sad truth about benghazi. the cia director john brennan and his support for drone bombings to kill american traitors and we might get into waterboarding as well. first up the automatic sequester spending cuts set to kick in in three weeks. outgoing secretary of defense leon pan et offered these dire warning today before congress. take a listen. >> frankly one of the greatest security risks we are now facing as a nation that, this budget uncertainty could prompt the most significant readiness -- military readiness crisis in more than a decade. >> all right. but there are ways to responsibly trim the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think
to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so they're going to stick with whatever obama wants. it really is up to the president to find a way grace
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
qualities and they will inspire a guide as as we carry out the united states foreign policy in these challenging times ahead. as the son of a diplomat and a member of the united states senate, deeply engaged in american diplomacy, you bring to this office a unique perspective and knowledge of both politics and diplomacy. and of the importance of a professional career in foreign service as the backbone of american diplomacy in the department of state. despite our necessary focus on complex and counter-terrorism, our values, a vision, and interest calls for an overarching diplomatic engagement, recognized worldwide as a leadership role worthy of the united states on behalf of the greater good of mankind. it is truly a great pleasure for us to welcome you here and we trust that under your storage chip, all parts of the state department team will gain in stature and recognition and enhance our professional capabilities to be fully prepared to meet the challenges in these difficult times demand. as we commit our support and loyalty to you, mr. secretary, i also take this opportun
, the israeli oprah, he won his election not by doing the traditional pushes for foreign policy reform that one usually does in israel. he really won on domestic issues like lowering taxes and affordable housing and all that kind of stuff. an interesting thing to watch. i think the israel trip for the president accomplishes a couple of things. one, the announcement boosts the chuck hagel nomination. it's saying i'm going there. i know i didn't make it to israel in my first four years of office, but i'm going. if you are reading into this nomination, don't. it rubber stamps john kerry as secretary of state. john kerry wants to make the israeli and little east process a big part of his agenda. obama's way of saying i'm taking that message and just nominated this guy and i am taking john kerry with me in spirit. for us in terms of policy, it probably has less to do with israel and the palestinians and more to do on our end with syria, egypt, iran and seeing what we can flush out in terms of three different theaters. there is a lot on. agenda and does a lot of things. >> my read on the rational beh
. it's a major component of his foreign policy. and listen, there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what congressman rogers was stressing in the interview with andrea mitchell, and legal oversight. and up until this point we really haven't seen any legal justification that the administration has presented for why it can target american civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the homeland. >> well, it was written today in the "new yorker" that the justification that they're using is a comparison to military troops going into cambodia in vietnam. that's how the nixon administration, they're making that comparison. i don't know how that's going to set with a lot of people. so i'm anxious to hear what mr. brennan does for justification tomorrow. sam? >> let me add one point to that which is the other thing the administration has done is well, we've been talking about this process, attorney general eric holder has been talking about this process. john brennan has been talking about this process publicly. we have outlined it. and i think there is a
or seen as instruments of foreign policy. to undercover operations they don't want a military operation. but in with these meetings talking about afghanistan with the departure of agriculture after afghanistan and robert gates grew up in kansas have been no they know how to grow anything? it has been a problem. betray a says come i'm. they're not trained to do that with a they should or not the they have never been trained civic i appreciate you coming. i am a retired artillery officer hinder than betray us with that kind of gap it was a culture shock but with special forces and insurgency and if it meshes with the drones reusing that seems to be proliferating and your take on the ethical concerns a said capturing people we blow them away. >> one thing crystal did did create so he reached out to resolve the different intelligence agencies and conventional forces. when he went out he had access to every kind of intelligence there was handed revolutionized, a very integrated. that could be the subject of another talk. one, in terms of casualties is somebody fired a drone and was on me not
. this is a major component of the president's war on terror. it's a major component of his foreign policy. and listen, there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what congressman rogers was stressing in the interview with andrea mitchell, and legal oversight. and up until this point we really haven't seen any legal justification that the administration has presented for why it can target american civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the homeland. >> well, it was written today in the "new yorker" that the justification that they're using is a comparison to military troops going into cambodia in vietnam. that's how the nixon aw incredie changes. ri and i think there is a role for congress to play. and i would add even for the american public to play to a certain extent in judging what kind of legal justifications the administration is using. i understand the administration doesn't want to set a bad precedent here, but these are weighty matters. >> colonel, what kind of intel are we getting on the ground? i mean we have to be sure that we're not kill
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
that i began in 1976 to galvanize african-american opinion on foreign-policy issues, particularly issues that concern the black world, u.s. policy towards africa, the caribbean and latin america. so transafrica of course was the organization that used its incher mentalities to galvanize american opposition to apartheid and with the embassy arrests that we were able to organize the arrest of 5000 people and in the 1980s and 1984 and the next year, and with that working with members of congress. we won the support for the set of sanctions that president reagan vetoed and his veto was overridden by a republican-controlled senate excess of the work we did and the millions we organized to make a difference. that, coupled with the great work that was being done in south africa led to a new africa that we see today. but we have been doing that work over a period of time. i had been there 25 years when i stepped down. >> host: who are maxey and doris robinson? >> guest: maxie robinson was my father and doris robinson was my mother. and i have already introduced you to them. they had strong opini
an important foreign policy shift both in terms of process and engagement in the region. when i say process i say that it is grounded for the first time in our history in the bedrock of parliamentry consent, public legitimacy, and many stakeholders that matter being onboard in the manging of foreign policy. so this is a first for pakistan, including our relationship with the united states, which is now pretty much run by parliamentry guidelines, and we move affording to those now, which does empower us to take decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that is long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states and pakistan as it transitions after the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> so busy taking notes. let me ask you one or two and move to my colleagues. you were early in offering congratulations to john kerry. i wanted to ask you about the impact if any you see kerry moving in as secretary of state is going to have. as you know the "wall street journal" ran an oped piece last week tal
a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the
/11 obviously certainly on foreign policy became much more conservative. >> he always was. i mean, he was always a sort of new york zionist, supported israel wholeheartedly, you know, sent a delegation to central america in the mid-'80s to chart a course against, you know, sort of the communist rule in nicaragua. that sort of thing in foreign policy terms. but in sort of fiscal terms and in governance terms, he would say, you know, siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens is nuts. saying it's okay to do graffiti on subways is nuts. saying that it's okay for homeless people to sleep on grates on second avenue is nuts. this was all very much the way ordinary people felt, and they felt that democrats and the leadership of the left had turned against ordinary citizens and the good order of their lives. and he stood up against that. >> right. and seemed same and rational unless you were a member of the democratic establishment in the late '70s and '80s when koch was mayor. so it sounds very sane and rational right now in new york city. it didn't at the time. >> it was a much different -- the t
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> ana, the viewers may not know the history between hagel and mccain. they were close friends in 2000. not so in 2008 when it was clear that hagel's wife was supporting obama and not mccain. was that personal? >> i don't think so at all. anybody who ever saw mccain grill donald rumsfield knows that this is john mccain. this is his job. they are there to advise and consent, not to rubber stamp. if they are not going to get the scrutiny and tough questions now, then when? >> why was he so much tougher on chuck hagel than john kerry? >> because there are so many inconsistenci
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 106 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)